5 ms·
Why? Im merely pointing out how the law works, and that if you want to win a legal dispute, do it when the opposing party has incentive (or better, a requireme
by hoodoof 11y ago
Why? Im merely pointing out how the law works, and that if you want to win a legal dispute, do it when the opposing party has incentive (or better, a requirement) to quickly resolve the issue.
Not sure why pointing this out makes me not a good person to found a company with.
I have separated from a co-founder and I made damn sure we had an agreement in writing defining the terms of the separation. Didn't take much, no lawyers, just a one page agreement, three people each with a copy, all with signatures. All still good friends.
- proksoup 11y agoIt indicates your attitude towards how one should act. Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not consider the social consequences of being a dick. Good luck sir.
- okabat 11y agoBeing aware of risk angles and protecting yourself is not the same thing as condoning exploitative behavior. I'd want my cofounder to think through how somebody with legal leverage over our company would act. You should want that too.
- proksoup 11y ago> I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards. That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?
- jimbokun 11y agoWhich side is being more dickish in this case is still very much in dispute, which is why it's going to court. You seem to be certain one side is looking out for their self interest much more than the other, which you have no way of really knowing because you are just another person commenting on a discussion on the Internet. Unless you are personally involved in this matter, and know more than what has been publicly reported so far? And even then, how would we know you are not being biased in your judgments by your involvement?
- proksoup 11y agoThe amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial. Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.
- jimbokun 11y agoSo you are against anyone being compensated at the amounts under discussion? Which is a coherent, defensible position. Sounded like you were selectively accusing one actor in this dispute as the "greedy" one, which I think is why you got so much push back on your comments.
- proksoup 11y agoNot against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy. If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.
- danso 11y agoSo you're implying that you'd never work with YC or Vogt or any of their investors? GM is spending $1B to acquire Cruise, which is a vast sum for a small company that has been around for 3 years. Even 20% of that would be a great payout for all involved, and think of how much money GM could have left over to continue to revive the dormant U.S. industry, and U.S. fortunes at large. By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.
- proksoup 11y ago> By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward. What do you need a reward for at all? Why are you trying to build something? By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.
- theoracle101 11y agoThat's not how I want the law to work. We should strive for better
- hashkb 11y agoBecause you're waiting to maximize your leverage and make a play for yourself. That's a bad quality in a teammate.
- joslin01 11y agoTo you and everyone else attacking him, you're conflating his explanation with his personal character. That's not fair.
- hoodoof 11y agoTell that to Eduardo Saverin and the Winklevoss twins.
- redshirtrob 11y agoSo is cutting someone out of a company. My point is that this probably became an emotional issue. If that's the case, it's not hard to see how someone would wait for an opportune moment to assert ownership. But, since we don't really know all the facts, if this was a mutual parting of ways, then I agree that it's a terrible thing to do. The bottom line is we really don't know what happened. I can at least see how a reasonable person could walk this path if they feel they've been maligned.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]